WHEN SECURITY SUCCEEDS AND RIGHTS FAIL ; A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY
ABSTRACT
National Security has emerged as a dominant framework of governance structures in the
contemporary era, simultaneously replacing the much-celebrated and more important
concept of Human Rights as a tool for maintaining Social Order. Citizens themselves support
this prioritisation in most of the situations, even if it is not in their best interest. The
Sociological contrast between the notions of Human Rights and National Security can be used
to investigate the cause of this paradox. While human rights lean towards being an individual
experience, National Security is more of a collective concern. The Sociological superiority of a
groupconscience over any individualistic need is consequently observed. As the personal
nature of justice and rights, which implies their limited social grounding, gradually reduces
the effectiveness of their advocacy, security succeeds by producing social cohesion and
collective needs. In this paper, classical and modern theoretical frameworks in Sociology,
including the concepts of social order, moral action, authority, consent and solidarity are
studied to establish the specific crisis of Human Rights as a fundamentally sociological
problem rather than a legal one. A blueprint for the reimagination of human rights as a
collective Social value rather than a mere legal guarantee is designed in that context, to ensure
the sustenance of democratic values in every society.
Keywords: Group conscience; Social grounding
LITERATURE REVIEW
The connection between human rights and national security has been implicitly mentioned
throughout scholarly works in Sociology and Political Science. Although implied, early
Sociological theories analyse the concepts of Authority, Solidarity and Social Order, which in turn
throws light on why security claims often override an individual’s needs.
Emile Durkheim (1983/2013) had clearly proposed the sustenance of Social Order to be based
on collective conscience, that is, what binds the individuals into a cohesive society. Similarly,
Max Weber (1933) has formulated the concepts of legitimacy of power, which is monopolised
by a state. At times of crises, the assertion of authority by the state gets rationalised through
bureaucratic and legal structures.
Modern theoretical works, such as that of Michael Foucault (2007) supports this analysis. He
introduced Governmentality, a concept which highlights the operation of Modern Power through
Surveillance, regulation and normalisation rather than mere repression. Most recently, Giorgio
Agamben (2005) has made the notion of the State Of Exception to explain how abnormal
security measures are now normalised. Emergency powers invoked during crises such as
pandemics, continue after their immediate necessity. Ignatieff (2004) argues, that human rights to
be a moral language and a political instrument. However, critics note that rights rely more on
legal than social internalisation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations,
1948) established transnational standards. Still, enforcement depends on State Sovereignty. This
reveals the pathetic dependence of rights on the very system that suspends it.
Contemporary global occurrences are further illustrating this tension. Prolonged emergency laws,
militarised border policies, digital governance frameworks and Subtly expanding surveillance
regimes show how security is institutionalised.
Existing Shortcomings:
All existing Scholarships largely treat the competition between rights and security, however, as a
legal dilemma. There remains comparatively lower focus on the sociological foundations of this
imbalance; especially how morality, authority structures and Social Cohesion shape public
consent. This study tries to bridge this gap by placing this failure of human rights within the
structural logic of modern Society rather than a legal shortcoming as it is.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study situates the dilemma between human rights and security within classical and
contemporary sociological theory. Instead of approaching the issue as merely constitutional,
analyses draw upon theories of Social Order, Legitimacy and Social Governance to explain why
security gains socio - structural dominance over rights .
1. Collective Conscience and Social Solidarity ; Émile Durkheim
Durkheim’s concept of collective conscience provides a foundational explanation for the
sociological superiority of security discourse. According to Durkheim, “The totality of beliefs
and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system with
a life of its own. It can be called the collective or common consciousness.”(Durkheim,
1893/2014, p. 38). When a society perceives an external (terrorism, war) or internal in nature
(social unrest, pandemics) threat, the preservation of collective order becomes a moral necessity.
However, human rights are framed largely around individual entitlements and personal
autonomy. They do not inherently mobilise collective emotion in the same manner as the appeals
to national survival or social cohesion do. Security succeeds because it aligns with the moral
strength of collective solidarity, whereas rights often appear fragmented and individualised.
Thus, the prioritisation of security over rights is not accidental; it reflects the deeper sociological
reality that group preservation carries stronger normative force than individual claims.
2. Legitimate Authority and the Rational-Legal State ; Max Weber
The theory of legitimate authority further clarifies this imbalance. The modern state operates
under rational-legal authority in which obedience is owed not to individuals but to formally
decided rules and institutions. The state also has the monopoly over the legitimate use of
physical force.
At times of crisis; emergency laws, surveillance measures and restrictive policies are justified
within this bureaucratic framework. They acquire legitimacy even when they curtail individual
freedoms, because such actions are institutionalised and legally codified. At the same time,
human rights protections depend on enforcement mechanisms that may be subordinated to
executive authority during crises.
Security therefore, succeeds not only morally (as Durkheim explains) but also institutionally
through the structured authority of the state.
3. Power, Surveillance, and Governmentality; Michel Foucault
Foucault’s concept of governmentality shifts our focus from overt repression to subtle
governance mechanisms. Modern power operates through surveillance, regulation and
normalization rather than visible force. Contemporary infrastructures from digital monitoring
systems, biometric databases and futuristic policing technologies do show how security becomes
intrinsic to routine governance.
Compliance becomes voluntary because protection is framed as necessary for collective
well-being.
4. The State of Exception and Normalised Emergency; Giorgio Agamben
Agamben’s theory of the state of exception deepens the analysis by explaining how
extraordinary measures become normalized. States temporarily suspend rights to restore order In
situations of perceived crisis, wars or threats. However, such exceptional measures often become
permanent features of governance. This normalisation brings down the division between
temporary suspension and permanent reimagination of rights.
5. Human Rights as Politics and the Lesser Evil; Michael Ignatieff
Ignatieff provides a crucial normative insight into the debate between security and rights. In
Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, he argues that human rights should not be treated as
sacred moral absolutes but as political tools designed to protect individuals from abuse of power.
Rights are not abstract truths but historically contingent tools embedded within state systems.
More importantly, in The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, Ignatieff confronts the
central tension of modern democracies: whether smaller rights violations can be justified in
order to prevent public harm. He suggests that democratic states may sometimes adopt strict
security measures under conditions of extreme threat but such actions must remain accountable,
transparent and conditional.
He also argues that democratic institutions retain the capacity for self-correction, unlike
Agamben who sees the state of exception as a permanent erosion of legality. The danger lies not
in temporary security measures themselves but in their normalization without oversight.
Thus Ignatieff complicates the dilemma. Security does not inherently destroy rights; instead
rights require institutional vigilance to survive within security regimes. The challenge here, is
ensuring that security remains ethically constrained and not choosing between security and
rights.
ANALYSIS
I. Security Is A Collective Morality
Security succeeds because it is framed as a moral obligation in addition to a policy priority. At
times of a perceived threat, societies shift from individualistic reasoning to collective survival
logic. And that prioritises the preservation of order, stability and territorial integrity .In this moral
structure, right based dissents may even appear anti collective and irresponsible.
An analysis of Durkheim shows, security's appeal is because of its ability to activate the
collective conscience.When threats are narrated publically through terrorism, border conflicts or
internal unrest; the language of protection will bring an emotional solidarity.Citizens often
internalise that a temporary sacrifice of individual freedom is necessary for collective survival.
On the other hand, rights rely on the very abstract principles of dignity and equality. Such
principles are short of producing immediate emotional resonance.
In short, Security appeals to fear and unity while rights appeal to justice and restraint. In
conditions of crisis, the former supercedes the latter. Thus, security succeeds because it is
morally collectivised, while rights remain individualised and less preferred.
II.Rights are being Institutionally Subordinated
In addition to moral reasons, institutional structures also play a major role in the dominance of
security. Modern states have bureaucratic systems which are capable of implementing security
measures swiftly on the basis of executive orders, legislation and administrative regulation. Any
surveillance policy can be justified within the rational legal authority of the state.
But the protection of rights often depends on the slow judicial processes and safeguards of
interpretation, even if they are constitutionally guaranteed. During times of crises, executive
power strengthens while judicial power may be delayed or limited. This imbalance causes an
asymmetry and results in the domination of rights by security measures. Security will operate
through immediate institutional machinery, when rights wait for a judicial approval .
Furthermore, this institutional shift is supported by public consent. Citizens support restrictive
policies after perceiving security threats as urgent. Right-based objections then become
secondary or obstructive when this consent reinforces the legitimacy of expanded authority. This
analysis is supported by Weber's theories of legitimacy and bureacratic efficiency.
III. Consent, Fear, and the Democratic Paradox
There is a paradox that appears in democratic societies where citizens often supports policies
that curb their own freedom. This can be analysed through the sociology of fear and governance.
In security crises, a narrative is created in which citizens are portrayed as the potential victims
and the state or government as the protector. In such a framework, compliance is rational and
justified. Surveillance, data collection are accepted by individuals because they are interpreted as
protective rather than oppressive. Perception is shaped instead of imposing visible coercion.
The “failure” of human rights thus reflects not a collapse of legal frameworks, but a
transformation of social consciousness in which security becomes the primary organizing
principle of public life.
The democratic dilemma arises when the security measures, which are supposed to be
temporary, become normalised. This logic of exception gradually enters everyday governance.
Rights are reframed within security, instead of being openly abolished. Dissent becomes
suspicious and freedom gets regulated. Privacy becomes conditional.
The oversight of human rights thus reflects the transformation of social consciousness in which
security becomes the primary principle for the organisation of public lives, and not of a collapse
of legal frameworks.
IV. Structural weakness of human rights
The frameworks of human rights are often shown as universal and moral absolutes. However
their effectiveness according to sociology, is heavily subject to collective internalization. When
the perception of rights degrades to abstract legal entitlements rather than shared social values,
their defense weakens. Security remains strong as it remains embedded in identity, nationalism
and collective belonging. Human rights become soft when they do remain framed as external
pressures on state power and not as elements of social solidarity. Therefore, the crisis is derived
from a lack of depth of collective moral grounding that security commands.
FINDINGS
The study arrives at the following findings, based on the theoretical and analytical examination.
:
1. Collective Identity Gives Moral Superiority to Security
Security succeeds because it aligns with the collective conscience and social solidarity. Appeals
to national survival, unity, and protection resonate more strongly than rights-based claims, which
are often framed as individual entitlements. The moral weight of collective preservation
structurally advantages security discourse.
Security succeeds because it aligns with solidarity and collective conscience. Rights based
claims are often framed as individual entitlements and attract lesser support from society. The
moral weight of collective protection advantages security's claims.
2. Institutional Structures Privilege Security Over Rights
Modern states possess bureaucratic and legal mechanisms that allow rapid implementation of
security measures, particularly during crises. In contrast, rights protections rely on judicial
interpretation and procedural safeguards, which operate more slowly. This institutional
asymmetry reinforces the dominance of security within governance frameworks.
Modern states have bureaucratic and legal systems that supports rapid implementation of security
measures during the times of need. In contrast, rights that delay on judicial procedures and
reasoning disadvantage and reinforces its inferiority before security.
3. Public Consent Supports Restrictive Measures
It was clear through the study that even after curtailing personal freedoms, security measures
frequently receive public approval. This is a result of trust in the state. As a result, the expansion
of security powers is socially legitimised.
4. The Normalization of Emergency Weakens Rights
Temporary becomes normal part of routine governance over time. Gradual normalisation of
surveillance, monitoring, regulatory controls etc. reshapes the boundaries of tolerable state
power. Human rights are not abolished outright but become negotiable or conditional.
5. The Crisis of Human Rights is Sociological, Not Merely Legal
The root ofthe failure of human rights is not only weak legal enforcement. A deeper social
imbalance by which rights lack the same degree of collective support as security. Rights are very
prone to suspension as long as they are not internalised as shared social values.
The consideration and belittling of human rights violations as legal failures or system failure is
a disrespect for the social responsibility held by citizens to formulate what is acceptable in their
society and what is not.
6. Reimagining Human Rights Needs Collective Framing
For human rights to resist the dominance of security claims, they must be restructured as
something integral to collective well-being rather than as restrictions on state power. Only when
rights are understood as foundational to social order, can they achieve resilience within
democratic societies.
Whatever is external to the smooth and normal functioning of society, will be ignored by the
public as secondary to their survival. On the other hand, those issues that appear integral to the
society as a whole often gets too much attention when the group - survival mode is activated.
BLUEPRINT FOR REIMAGINING HUMAN RIGHTS AS COLLECTIVE SOCIAL
VALUE.
It is clear from the preceding analysis that the crisis of human rights is not just institutional but
also sociological. Security succeeds because it is embedded within collective morality; then the
survival of human rights depends on their reconsideration as shared social commitments rather
than individual claims. To create or design a society where basic human rights do not subdue
beneath national security, but coexists with every external threat; we need a The following
blueprint proposes structural shifts necessary for this transformation.
1. From Individual Entitlement to Collective Moral Principle
Human rights must be reframed as collective guarantees that sustain social cohesion, rather than
personal protections against the state. Rights should be promoted as necessary to collective
stability instead of positioning it as opposition, to security. Freedom of speech, expression,
privacy, dignity, religion etc. are not obstacles to power, but are what that prevents social
divisions. Embedding rights in the language of shared responsibility strengthens their moral base.
2. Integrating Rights into Civic Socialization
The collective conscience is formed through medias, public discourse etc.. Incorporation of
human rights into civic rights as everyday ethical practices will be helpful. When rights are
culturally internalised instead of legal invocation, their defense becomes socially instinctive.
Rights must acquire similar cultural resonance. Rights must acquire equal cultural resonance
with Security narratives to dominate public imagination.
3. Institutional Symmetry Between Security and Rights
Executive mechanisms operate faster and more decisively than rights protections, resulting in
the emergence of structural and social imbalances. Democratic Systems must ensure that rights
oversight mechanisms such as judicial review, independent commissions and transparency
frameworks are institutionally strengthened and not treated as secondary safeguards.
Security and Rights must operate in balanced institutional backgrounds rather than on
hierarchical and biased structural ones.
4. Limiting the Normalization of Emergency
Emergency powers should be made strictly time-bound, transparently reviewed and subjected to
independant evaluation. The normalization of exception gradually reduces democratic consciousness. When the violation of any individual entitlements is done in the name of
conditions that are then prevailing in the society itself, more precisely as a part of exceptional
cases, it is of high chances that citizens may not understand the difference between exceptional
and regular situations.
Even in crisis contexts, Rights must be positioned as non-deniable core principles, not as
privilages or gifts from the government.
5. Reframing Security Itself
Another way is that the word security itself can be used to imply a different meaning that goes
beyond militarization and surveillance. It can be redefined as human security; from poverty,
inequality, discrimination, structural violence, etc . Security aligns more closely with human
rights rather than undermining them, when the concept of Security is broadened to be inclusive
of social justice dimensions. This restructuring can dilute the separation between protection and
liberty.
CONCLUSION
The tension between human rights and security is not a temporary policy dilemma but a
structural feature of modern governance. Security succeeds because it resonates with collective
conscience, institutional authority, and governance rationality. Human rights falter when they
remain abstract legal claims detached from shared moral grounding.
The challenge for democratic societies is not to reject security but to reconfigure rights as
constitutive elements of collective order. Only by embedding human rights within social
consciousness can the imbalance between protection and liberty be sustainably addressed.
The competition between human rights and security is not a temporary policy dilemma but a
structural feature of contemporary governance. Security succeeds because it goes with collective
conscience, institutional authority and rationality. Human rights weaken when they remain
abstract legal claims with no moral grounding. The challenge for democratic societies is to
reconfigure rights as constitutive elements of collective order. Only by the embedding of human
rights within social consciousness can the imbalance between protection and liberty be
sustainably addressed.
REFERENCES
1.Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception (K. Attell, Trans.)[Kindle version].
2.Durkheim, E. (2018). The division of labor in society. In Social stratification
(pp. 217-222). Routledge.
3.Durkheim, E. (2023). The rules of sociological method. In Social theory re-wired
(pp. 9-14). Routledge.
4.Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, trans. Alan
Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1979), 227.
5.Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
6.Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: lectures at the Collège de France,
1977-78. Springer…..
7.Foucault, M. (2010). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France,
1978--1979 (Vol. 7). Picador.
8..Gerth, H. H., Weber, M., & Mills, W. (2013). From Max Weber: essays in sociology.
Routledge.
9.Ignatieff, M. (2004). The lesser evil: Political ethics in an age of terror. Princeton
University Press.
10.United Nations. General Assembly. (1949). Universal declaration of human rights
(Vol. 3381). Department of State, United States of America.
11.Weber, M. (1933). Economy and Society; an outline of interpretive sociology.
12..Weber, M. (2002). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism
(P. Baehr & GC Wells, Trans.). England: Penguin Books.(Original work published 1905).